Before the Flood, There Was No Moon.

I didn't know where to do this topic, but finally, I thought it was the right forum.

The article try to find an anwser to the "moon problem ", but in fact, it raise many new questions.

Was the Moon a part of the Earth?

It should be emphasized that there are many people who perceive this only as a hypothesis. A computer analysis is not convincing to everyone. It is
surprising, but the Moon’s past recreated by computer coincides with a lot of facts that were written in ancient sources. It stands to reason that
coincidences are rarely incidental.

As it turns out, a lot of myths, legends, and tales say that there used to be no Moon in the sky. The Moon appeared after the Great Flood. This was
noticed by the people who lived in the south of Greece, as well as by African tribes and others. However, there were a lot of ebb and flow traces
found in many ancient cities. As is well known, it's is the Moon that causes ebbs and flows. This does not coincide with the no-Moon theory before
the Flood. However, if there was no Moon, then maybe there was another celestial body to fulfil its functions? Other sources say that there used to be
two or even several moons shining in the sky. It is not ruled out that those other Earth satellites were "in charge" of ebbs and flows.

The people from the Mayan civilization left reports, in which they said that it was not the Moon, but Venus shining above them in the sky at night.
Maybe, Venus was absolutely different back in those years? There was an ancient Roman historian who believed that the Great Flood was caused by the
change of Venus’ color, size, shape, and orbit.

Many myths and legends say that the Moon rose in the sky after the after-Flood darkness cleared up. Did the Moon cause the Flood?

Planets and Stars are constantly destroyed into dust, then reformed after condensing, etc. over billions of years.

Interesting supposition. While I don't ascribe to the theory of the Moon being formerly part of the Earth...the idea that the Moon was somehow
knocked closer to Earth, and caused the Great Flood is certainly plausible, and does tie in to some legends. The only problem is, we're dealing with
legends from very early on in our (human) history, so they must be taken with a grain of salt.

I have this crazy theory that the flood stories were in fact blown out of proportion. I remember in the bible that it said, "in those days" man
lived to be 1000 years old, and we were of great stature, meaning big, tall.

And, if Olaf Jansons story is in deed based in some fact, there may be a cooralation here. Olaf described a adventure into the hollow of the earth in
which he met a race of beings that were on avarage 12 feet tall, and spoke a language that was akin to sandscrit. He also told of the name of one of
the rivers inside, I belive it was the Tigris river. Im not sure about that. But there was enough info to draw parralles between the old bible
stories, and what Olaf stated in his story.

SO, obviously, if this were true, there would be no moon in the hollow earth. It would seem mankinds clock on the surface of the planet would have
started when the Nohas Arch left port from the interior of the earth and landed on the exterior of the planet.

Olaf said only that there was a dull red sun inside which the people worshiped as a god, by the name of the "Smoky God". But no metion of a moon.
It is thorized that the dull red sun is some type of magnetic anomily that keeps the inside temp at 74 degrees.

In as far as my own personal thoughts on it, well Im just open minded.

Originally posted by Phimes
And I find it very interesting that the moon revolves only once each month, always keeping the same face towards the earth.

Do you find that amazing? I do. Even the Earths obits isn't that exact. Every once in awhile they have to adjust the clocks for the variations in
the earths rotation. But the moon just stays the same.

Wavering in and out a bit , but the rotations stays exact.

Anyone ever hear the testimonies of the military officials that stood in front of congress and told what they had saw and what they knew? They talk
about the moon and how it is not what we are told.

You will find the testimonies on the Disclosure website.

Phimes

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Phimes]

Actually, the moon moves an inch and a half farther away from Earth each year gradually slowing the earth's rotation and increasing the length of our
days. Discovery ran a special about the origin of the moon last month and suggested a planet actually collided with earth causing a debris field that
formed our moon. Evidence comes from moon rocks brought back from Apollo that show the moon is made of like material as the Earth's mantle. Its
theorized that once we lose our moon. life will not be possible on Earth. Bummer.

I've searched the Discovery Channel web site since finding this post but still haven't been able to locate anything about the program they aired.

The collision itself is a huge subject that takes a while to explain , thats why I'd like to be able to link yas to it but I'm not having much luck.

Past ancient catastrophies are fact and recorded in ALL ancient civilisation's writings. Now, if one wishes to postulate that world wide flood's
and destruction's are limited and isolated to certain area's, why is that ALL ancient civilisation writing's describe and mention 'global'
destruction's and flood's? And not happening once, but in many, multiple times.

To dismise something as nonsequential, insignificant, 'blown out of proportion', myth, stories, etc., is being a little presumptuous and arrogant,
if not foolhardy. Its a FACT that civilisations rise and that they eventually fall. Will 'we', because of our 'enlightened' thinking and
'advancements', just IGNORE our ancestry and the historical ancient writings of a multitude of world civilisation's as mute? Is there truely
nothing to be learned from our past? Or are we destined to end as they did.....as the Fall of another 'enlightened' civilisation?

If a comet was caught in earths orbit, it's gravity would affect the earth, like the moon does. Now if the moon was newly captured then it would not
have an established orderly pattern to its orbit, and also, the tides. It would create erratic tides and possibly, the flood? Is that plausible to
you?

Wierdest theory is that the earth had a sister planet (Mars) that revolved around each other and both put together had 3 moons. I could be wrong but
someone said that their was an explosion in the sun or expansion (cant remember), and both planets seperated, taking their moons with them.

I thought Venus was the sister planet of earth?? Also heard moon moves 1 cm away each year after Apollo landed on it?? Farside of the moon has been
hit and damaged ALOT more than the side we see. Wouldnt a nice junk of rock push it in another direction??

Well, ya run into just a little problem in that very ancient human monuments also track moonrise. And some of our most ancient tales are about "the
man in the moon" or "the old woman carrying sticks in the moon" or "the rabbit in the moon," etc.

"Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied
the land already before there was a moon in the sky above Earth; for this reason they were called the Proselenes."
This may have been purely a symbolic statement, but none-the-less.

Here is a page with ancient references to the Earth without a moon entitled: "The Earth without the Moon" www.varchive.org...

"The Italian philosopher, Giordano Bruno wrote: "Those Arcadians said that they were before the Moon, in time and years."

and,
"...that the Moon had appeared a little while before the war which was fought by Hercules against the Giants."

According to one theory, the Moon was formed some 13,500 years ago (11500 BP) in an episode of 'parturition' from the Earth. This would suggest
that if the above statement from Bruno were true, then the Arcadians lived before that time.

There are other 'myths' that also support the recent formation of the Moon, but the big question is whether 'myths' can be interpreted as
"evidence." In scientific circle's, they simply do not equate nor constitute 'evidence'. Sad.

However, there are unusual anomolies that may give credence to the idea of a recently formed Moon.

One theory has it that the Moon, or at least the original materials that comprised the proto-Moon, was erupted from the Pacific Basin some 13,500
years ago. The causal agent was a close approach of "Uranus Minor" (present day Uranus or possibly the planet Neptune).

Huge close-proximity forces (maybe the much larger Uranus Minor was approx. 100,000 miles distant, but never-the-less still "close"), caused a
cleavage of the Earth's crust and mantle layers in the shallow sea of Tethys (at the area of now Pacific Basin), which at the time completely
surrounded the land mass of Pangea. This ejected material followed the passage of Uranus Minor until a greater part of this erecta was recaptured by
the Earth. Uranus Minor continued on into the outer reaches of the solar system.

The Moon material, largely molten but beginning to cool, was reshaped hydrostatically (reinforced electrically) into its present shape or sphere. The
whole eruption event probably only took a matter of hours, and half a day at most. The shaping of the Moon may have taken tens of years, but the
whole episode, including later Lunar worship, probably lasted for some 3,000 years (ie: up to 10,000years ago).

As fantastic as this may sound, sure, but curiously Lunar worship preceded planetary worship by a millennia, then fell into obscurity.

The theory also fits in with the currently purported end of the Ice Age ie: 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Such a disruption would heat up and disperse
the ice sheets into the gaping hole formed at the present day Pacific Basin. This too may have caused Pangea to split apart as crustal material moved
in haste to fill the cavity left by the material ejection....the theory of Plate Techtonics being the present day slow-moving remnant of this
event.

It is also known that the magnetic dipole's of the Earth are offset by some 436+/- kilometers in the direction of the Pacific Basin and that the
whole circumferential area forms a huge volcanic "ring of fire", both these anomolies are still unexplained.

On the Moon, there are signs of whats called "recentness":

It is known that gases are continually escaping from many areas.
The crater 'Aristarchus' is still warm and is an active area of transient lunar phenomena (TLP's...now excepted as fact).
Probably the same is occuring in many other areas as well.
Moonquakes are frequent.
Moon rocks retain a remanent magnetism which is unexplained, but dated as 'recent'.
The crystalline features of the surface of the Moon suggest "recentness."
The Moon orbits the Earth obliquely.
Maria are of balsatic origin.
etc.,etc.

BTW, Bruno was burned at the stake for having such 'views'. Today we get sidelined and ridiculed.

Then there is the 'myth' concerning the "tenth planet" or Planet X or 'Tiamat' according to the Ancient Sumerians. Here is the article
entitled: "The Late Great Planet Tiamat" www.paranoiamagazine.com...

I could not find the original or a reference for the actual Sumerian 'myth or story, but I am still trying....sorry. But I do recall it as being an
'actual' myth according to the ancient Sumerians.

I read somewhere that without the moon the earth's axis would have a wobble which would cause sporadic weather conditions..unstable poles..and the
moon is what provides light at night.....anyone heard of this?.....

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.